Oscar
Just a word about this event of little real importance. (Usually I don't think it is even remotely relevant to comment on the Oscars, as we all know that it's just a Hollywood PR event par-excellence).
But something exceptionally nice happened there yesterday night that counters the arm twisting tactics of the Studios (large and small, read Miramax) to get awards regardless of the artistic merit of the film itself...and I thought it would be good to point it out.

I am referring, of course, to Ron Harwood, Adrien Brody and Roman Polanski's upset wins over in their categories, over competitors who were considered shoo ins by the media and the Hollywood establishment.
Even in the tradition of upsets (there are always upsets...) this was a sweet one, (and you could see how sweet by Adrien Brody's sincere, heartfelt acceptance speech) with the award really going to the candidate who made an exceptional artistic contribution this year, as opposed to the wealthy PR apparatus that pushes names (even if they are the names of legendary directors such as Martin Scorcese).
No, I am not naive, I know you don't get to the final category without your own share of PR and money, still, everything is relative, and in this respect, "The Pianist", with all it's problems, was an exceptional film, about a very pertinent issue, created with some great artistry.

On the Possibility that Saddam will not be President of Iraq by the end of March:
Tradersare betting Saddam futures on Tradesports.com.
According to an article in this week's New Yorker more and more organizations are reverting to a market environment, called "decision markets" which seem to be the most effiicient system for forecasting the outcome of events as well as other forecasts. Today one can trade on anything from the chances that the US will find Osama to who will win the Oscar for Best Actress.
Even the US Dept. of Defense is putting in place an internal system for "trading" in which defense and intelligence analysts will speculate on strategic and geopolitical issues like "where is the most likely potential target for future terrorist attacks". Hewlett-Packard is apparently experimenting using internal decision markets for forecasting sales projections. The result till now have been more accurate then the management forecasts.
The New Yorker : "Why do decision markets work so well? THer are extremely efficient at aggregating information and tapping into the collective wisdom of a group of traders, and groups are almost always smarter than the smartest people in them."
Anyway, futures on the question whether Saddam will be gone by the end of this month are down 19 points today.

Apropos the Surreality of the e-war and the sanitation of suffering...

From Susan Sontag's new book Regarding the Pain of Others:

''To speak of reality becoming a spectacle is a breathtaking provincialism. It universalizes the viewing habits of a small, educated population living in the rich part of the world, where news has been converted into entertainment. . . . It assumes that everyone is a spectator. It suggests, perversely, unseriously, that there is no real suffering in the world. But it is absurd to identify the world with those zones in the well-off countries where people have the dubious privilege of being spectators, or of declining to be spectators, of other people's pain . . . consumers of news, who know nothing at first hand about war and massive injustice and terror. There are hundreds of millions of television watchers who are far from inured to what they see on television. They do not have the luxury of patronizing reality.''

Interesting piece about the growing spectre of anti-Semitism that is accompanying this war.

This Surreal E-War and it's Mediation
So if you thought the 1st Gulf War was one of the most surreal "real time" experiences ever (if you remember it...) ...well here is the great sequel : Gulf War Part II, bigger, better, more advanced, more technologically dazzling, and much much more virtual and scary.

As has been the case probably since the Kennedy assisination in 1963 and then the Vietnam War, Americans (and now the world) are experiencing a major national event uniquely through their TV screens. "The war" as just another TV show or movie, with no sense of anything real except the images you see on the set. With so much talk about the fancy technology that dominates every aspect of this ultra modern war campaign, the dimiinshing exposure to the reality of the conflict further re-enforces the sense of surreality that abounds thinking and feeling this event as it unfolds.
It is a measuer of the frightening nature of the world we live in that most of us can sit comfortably in our living rooms, flip through the channels to watch real time "embedded" reporter moving with the troops on all fronts in mulitple branches of the armed forces and the immdiately also see the results of their actions.
The images have such a strong element of the "produced" about them, that my first impression watching Ted Koppel talking to Peter Jennings (ABC's is by far the best coverage out there) on the Kuwait-Iraq border, behind him hundred of tanks rolling quietly by into Iraq
was " This is on location somewhere in the Mojave Desert".
It is that degree of disbelief about the reality of what we see, that completely shades this whole campaign and creates a stronger sense of alienation from the truth with even greater issues regarding the "remote control" decision to go to war and "produce" the destruction of a country as if it was a version of the latest video game - sterile and safe at home in front of our tv or computer screen.
Showing 'Shock and Awe,' but No Blood - NYTimes 3/22/03

Saddam Gone?

Watching Saddam's first televised response to the Anglo-American attack on Iraq, my immediate thought was that this was not him. This man who looked generally like Saddam seemed just that - "generally like" Saddam.
It was one of those pathetic moments when you can see the desperation to seem normal, reflecting anything but: the thick glasses covering the face, the statement read off of handwritten paper legal pad, a less than forceful delivery. This is not Saddam, I thought to myself.
And now the speculation begins and the Washington Post leads the pack with an interesting first peek into what officials in the Bush adminstration are saying and thinking about this issue, followed close behind by the New York Times' International Herald Tribune.

Nick Denton has some interesting comments regarding the war

...and on a "lighter" note...

Could this be the beginning of the end for the British monarchy?
Talk about explosive...the reports of a secret video diary Diana made for her "own" records and the quotes from it in the Sunday Mirror are beyond juicy...:
The Diana Tape

...apropos France...

Despite my clear stand against any kind of boycotting...
NO ONE here thinks the French have taken their position on moral grounds...it's all about their interests.
So here are some quotes regarding the French from a friend of this blog (thanks John Mueller):

"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your
accordion." --Norman Schwartzkopf

"France has neither winter nor summer nor morals. Apart from these drawbacks
it is a fine country. France has usually been governed by
prostitutes."---Mark Twain

"I would rather have a German division in front of me than a French one
behind me."--- General George S. Patton

"You know, the French remind me a little bit of an aging actress of the
1940s who was still trying to dine out on her looks but doesn't have the
face for it." ---John McCain, U.S. Senator from Arizona

"You know why the French don't want to bomb Saddam Hussein? Because he hates
America, he loves mistresses and wears a beret. He is French, people
---Conan O'Brien

From the I Ching 7th Hexagram: The Army
(Wilhelm Version, Bollingen Press, Princeton University)

"...war is always a dangerous thing and brings with it destruction and devastation. Therefore, it should not be resorted to rashly but, like a poisonous drug, should be used as a last recourse.
The justifying cause of war, and clear and intelligible war aims, ought to be explained to the people by an experienced leader. Unless there is a quite definite war aim to which the people can consciously pledge themselves, the unity and strength of conviction that lead to victory will not be forthcoming. But the leader must also look to it that the passion of war and the delirium of victory do not give rise to unjust acts that will not meet with general approval. If justice and perseverance are the basis of action, all goes well."

Boycott France? It only hurts US.

There are a thousand reasons why NOT to even think of boycotting France, but the most important one is the ones have to do with not betraying the very principles this country was founded on: The right to free speech and free thought.
The idea that because France does not agree with the policies of the Bush adminstation (a policy which many Americans don't agree with either) we should punish the businesses and people of France is more than proposterous, it is an outrageous disgrace, a stain on the face of American ideals, values and culture. The fact that no official of any stature is outraged by the tragicomic changes made the menu of the House dining room's French Fry listing is another milestone in the rather fast erosion and disintegration of political democratic values that has taken place since the Bush team stole the presidency in November 2000 and has used 9/11 to curtail the Bill of Rights and Freedom of Speech.
Those of us with a conscience and a care for the history of this country's great achievement in these areas should stand up to be counted at this moment and go out and buy some good French Morbiere and a bottle of Burgundy.
This is truly a sad moment for the US, but there are a few rays of light.

"Whispers blaming the war on a Jewish cabal have got a little louder" - Lindbergh Lives - The Economist Mar 13th 2003

Thoughts On the Coming War. Part 2

What if the war goes bad?
Then the Jews are really in trouble.
That's is the growing sense that I have, the more I read about the furor over comments made by Jim Moran regarding the role Jews in the Bush Administration have in pushing for a war with Iraq, and the intellectual sub-debate regarding the extraordinary shift towards conservatism and the unusual level of support this war has in the characteristically pacifist Jewish community.
From my perspective it is beginning to sound beginning to sound more and more like the preparation for an anti-Semitic campaign, if the hopes for a quick and successful outcome to war don't materialize and all those optimistic predictions turn bad.
Somehow, it doesn't strike me that this kind of debate would even surface regarding the Korean community, if the Bush administration had decided to attack North Korea. Yes, I know that this is not a direct parallel, that the Korean community is not as deeply embedded in American life, doesn't have as much influence or money, etc. But any debate on the what the "Jews" think on this matter is always going to be an over-generalization and to have a whiff of anti-Semitic aroma to it.

Thoughts On the Coming War. Part 1.

Nothing is sacred it seems, in the eyes of the Bush administration. Not public opinion, not the deep and intricate balance of diplomacy , not the essential relationship with our allies (their people not just their governments), not the American democratic tradition, not history, nothing!
They are hell bent on going to war, for reasons, with evidence and with a case, that they have not been able to make convincingly enough for most people; hell bent on a historic vendetta to remove the guy in Baghdad who has dogged the Bush people from their failed decision in 1991 not to use the momentum of the Gulf War and go to Baghdad.
Sure they have tried sub-textually to imply that Saddam is another Hitler and that like 1939 the Europeans are shirking their responsibility and letting a menace of global proportions grow quietly while attempting different forms of appeasement, but does that really hold true? Can one really compare the threat that Saddam holds against the world today to the military industrial complex of Nazi Germany and the ideological and military force that threatened Europe and the world in the 30’s? It’s very hard to make that case, unless that is, as the Bush administration has been doing, you revert to scare tactics, i.e. say that one does not need massive weapons just weapons of mass destruction – "one vile will do" said Condee on Face the Nation, Sunday. They have a story and they are sticking to it, despite the fact that so much of the world, and many people in the US are so abjectly opposed to continuing this form of human interaction.

Interesting discussion on CNNFn (of all places) about the relationship between public opinion and the war. The participants are academics, so there is supposedly no political "bias". The basic argument they are making is that the case against the war has not been convincingly made, and that the sheer number of protesters is not an argument in and of itself; the anti-war camp hasn't offered convincing solutions for the Iraq problem to counter the Bush administration "solution", except for the fact that they don't want a war. Most of the Congress voted to give Bush the power to go to war. The Congresspeople who voted for are not just Republicans but Democrats, so in principal, this has been a democratic decision, made democratically by the peoples' representatives.

The capture of Mohammed and the war in Iraq
While the world obsesses about Saddam, the CIA is out hunting and capturing Al Qaeda’s leaders. So, is the threat of war on Iraq one of the great Red Herrings in history? If so, then the Bush Administration isn’t as incompetent as we think. Come to think of it…they are in power without having won the election outright...

All or Nothing (Mike Leigh, 2002)

In returning to the familiar territory of post-Tory working-class UK, Mike Leigh steps back into the world he left for the amazing, witty and delightful Topsy-Turvy. And a harsh return it is!

Many a reviewer. has hailed this as another Leigh master work, at once bleak and loving, brutal and sensitive. For me, it was just bleak and brutal.
The story and the characters were just not engaging enough and I hung on more out of respect for the director, than for interest in the evolution of the plot. The acting, indeed superb, with some of Mike Leigh's regulars, like Timothy Spall and Ruth Shean, perfoming with the sensitivity, dignity and professionlism we have come to expect of them throughout their collaboration with Mr. Leigh, but this acting never really transcended the truly depressive, hopeless atomosphere of collective misery spread thinly and evenly thoughout this work.
This film felt redundant to me, abusive to its audience, despite the "depth" of the now familiar social message (which was clear after 20 minutes) and a interpersonal message which, if not for the great director and actors, was only one step removed from a poor man's soap opera.
With the bleak terrain so precised rendered, the last 15 minutes of redemptive awakening seemed just a bit too contrived and pat, in light of the suffering endured during the 2+ hours which came before.
I am a huge Mike Leigh fan, but this was a derivative work, that felt like 1 Step Back instead of 2 Steps Forward.

Ground Zero (P4)
An interesting reflection on the nature and development of the memorial space and it's specific relationship to GZ by Kirk Johnson in The New York Times: The Very Image of Loss at Ground Zero.

Seeing Polanski's The Pianist (Roman Polanski, 2002) brought on a slew of emotions and thoughts. That in and off itself makes it worthwhile. I must confess that as Holocaust films go (in the genre - see below)- I did find this latest iteration more precise creative and compelling, even more interesting that any fiction Holocaust film I have yet seen (as "Shoa" is still the greatest of them all).
But therein lies the problem for a lot of the poeple I have spoken to about this fillm, the new genre "Holocaust Film" is now a tasteless reality in our lives, whether it's agood film (which this one, to my estimation, is) or just a tear jerking piece of sentimental fluff (as was "Life is Beautiful"). It's so easy...the Nazis were evil the Jews were pathetic, sad victims, and all the bystanders are culpable, the saviors - angels. The sheer mythic qualities of this combination are hard to let go of...So this story is being told again and again. Unfortunately for the real Holocaust the public appetite might not last, and then the opposite will have been achieved: No One will want to hear about the Holocaust. The public will be Holocausted out!!!! If this Polanski film is indeed the valedictory cinematic work on the subject, then it is a fine ending, one might even say a high point in this endeavor. But if this is just a stepping stone to the continued exploitation of the Holocaust theme, then this will be might be remembered as a sad turning point in the cinematic documentation of this unique event in human history.
So...
I won't regurgitate what all the reviewers quoted on Rotten Tomatoes have said. I can only add that looking at this film critically and satirically, you are deifinitely right to question a lot of the choices made, but it is nonetheless a great film in my mind.
For a refreshingly different (and dare I say funny) point of view click here.